Date: 3/05/2018 14:12:45
From: macx
ID: 1220122
Subject: ...just when...

One of Stephen Hawking’s most famous and charismatic ideas was that the universe had no boundaries and time had no beginning.

However, it emerged yesterday that he had turned his back on the theory in the last paragraph of physics he wrote before his death.

The Cambridge University cosmologist, who died in March at the age of 76, has revised his signature hypothesis about the first instant of the Big Bang in a final, posthumous paper.

Hawking’s “no-boundary” proposal, set out jointly in 1983 with the American physicist James Hartle, held that the universe was effectively eternal because time curved back on itself like a sphere. It became so closely associated with Hawking that it furnished a pivotal scene in his 2014 biopic, The Theory of Everything, which turned the theory into a metaphor for his physical determination and courage.

It also left him unsatisfied, because it implied the possible existence of a large number of different universes, each with its own laws of physics. This made it impossible to explain why our universe should behave the way it does.

Hawking’s last scientific work, written with Thomas Hertog, a theoretical physicist at the University of Leuven in Belgium and his collaborator of two decades’ standing, announces a “significant departure” from the theory.

Professor Hertog journeyed frequently to Cambridge to develop the idea, even as it became increasingly difficult for Hawking to communicate. In fact, Hawking’s thinking had come full circle as he returned to the research of his youth, Professor Hertog said.

“There is a single, overarching question behind all of this work by Hawking,” he said. “It is a deeper understanding of where the laws of physics that we test in our labs come from.”

As a young scientist, shortly after he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, Hawking argued that the Big Bang began with a point beyond the reach of mathematics, where the equations Einstein had coined to describe reality broke down. This was replaced by the no-boundary proposal, his first big breakthrough after he was appointed to the Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge.

The new paper, published in the Journal of High Energy Physics, ditches that hypothesis and states that there is a boundary after all. It also makes for a simpler set of alternative universes.

“The idea of the ‘no boundary’ is gone again,” Professor Hertog said. “At some point 13.8 billion years in the past we had a boundary, where our familiar notion of time ceases to be meaningful and we are left with a kind of timeless state. there is nothing. No space. No time. Absolutely nothing.”

Marika Taylor, who studied under Hawking and is now professor of theoretical physics at the University of Southampton, said the no-boundary proposal had been a “beautiful” but flawed idea. Hawking’s final theory was a logical evolution of his earlier work and addressed a question to which there is still no conclusive answer, she added.

“I think it’s fair to say this is something which is still at the frontier of study. People believe that there was an inflationary period. What started that off is something that people are still exploring.”

However, Professor Taylor said that Hawking’s last paper was too speculative to ignite a revolution in cosmology: “There’s a core of sharp, rigorous work out there relating gravity to a theory with one less dimension, and they are pushing things beyond that. This is an interesting paper, and it’s Stephen’s last paper, but it’s not a breakthrough.”

—————————————-

The theory explained

The no-boundary proposal was one of Stephen Hawking’s most brilliant and troubling ideas. In 1983 he published a paper that appeared to solve the origin of time itself: it had no beginning. The further back you delve, the more time simply dwindles away. He compared it to travelling to the South Pole. By the time you arrive, the word “south” has lost its meaning. However, the model had an awkward implication. It gave rise to any number of possible universes, most of them hostile to the stable existence of the matter that makes up stars, planets and human beings. Hawking found all this deeply messy. His last paper is an attempt to resolve the problem. Hawking and Thomas Hertog describe a new boundary at the start of a finite universe, which leads logically to reality as we know it.

The Times

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 14:18:05
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1220126
Subject: re: ...just when...

Hi macx. That interpretation of Hawking’s last ideas seems rather odd given that his last media utterances, shortly before he died, were a reiteration of the “no boundaries” stuff.

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 14:24:47
From: macx
ID: 1220130
Subject: re: ...just when...

Hi macx. That interpretation of Hawking’s last ideas seems rather odd given that his last media utterances, shortly before he died, were a reiteration of the “no boundaries” stuff.

<><>><><><>

Perhaps he was running into a problem of “singularities” not at the string/infinitesimal scale, but rather “singularities” at the infinite scale. In either case current mathematics “breaks down”:

macx

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 14:25:59
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1220131
Subject: re: ...just when...

Bubblecar said:


Hi macx. That interpretation of Hawking’s last ideas seems rather odd given that his last media utterances, shortly before he died, were a reiteration of the “no boundaries” stuff.

Wouldn’t a boundary at the start of the universe prevent a big bang?

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 14:49:16
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1220135
Subject: re: ...just when...

> One of Stephen Hawking’s most famous and charismatic ideas was that the universe had no boundaries and time had no beginning.

That’s not my understanding, from his book.

The universe has no boundaries, yes.

Nothing exists before the big bang because time didn’t exist before the big bang, yes.

But that’s the exact opposite of saying that “time had no beginning”.

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 14:50:06
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1220136
Subject: re: ...just when...

macx said:


Hi macx. That interpretation of Hawking’s last ideas seems rather odd given that his last media utterances, shortly before he died, were a reiteration of the “no boundaries” stuff.

<><>><><><>

Perhaps he was running into a problem of “singularities” not at the string/infinitesimal scale, but rather “singularities” at the infinite scale. In either case current mathematics “breaks down”:

macx

Could just be that his last media presence lagged behind his last work. In March this year there were many reports presenting the “no boundary” ideas which Hawking promoted during his last interviews with US physics populariser Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 14:50:33
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1220137
Subject: re: ...just when...

Tau.Neutrino said:


Bubblecar said:

Hi macx. That interpretation of Hawking’s last ideas seems rather odd given that his last media utterances, shortly before he died, were a reiteration of the “no boundaries” stuff.

Wouldn’t a boundary at the start of the universe prevent a big bang?

I’d feel better if boundary was replaced by another state of matter.

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 14:52:49
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1220138
Subject: re: ...just when...

mollwollfumble said:


> One of Stephen Hawking’s most famous and charismatic ideas was that the universe had no boundaries and time had no beginning.

That’s not my understanding, from his book.

The universe has no boundaries, yes.

Nothing exists before the big bang because time didn’t exist before the big bang, yes.

But that’s the exact opposite of saying that “time had no beginning”.

Time ended in the beginning?

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 14:57:35
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1220141
Subject: re: ...just when...

Me, I’m relaxed and comfortable with the idea that what physics describes is a world that sometimes decays into conditions that physics can’t describe.

But I’m not a physicist :)

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 15:05:55
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1220142
Subject: re: ...just when...

>Professor Hertog said. “At some point 13.8 billion years in the past we had a boundary, where our familiar notion of time ceases to be meaningful and we are left with a kind of timeless state. there is nothing. No space. No time. Absolutely nothing.”

He’s exaggerating.

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 15:16:58
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1220143
Subject: re: ...just when...

Bubblecar said:


>Professor Hertog said. “At some point 13.8 billion years in the past we had a boundary, where our familiar notion of time ceases to be meaningful and we are left with a kind of timeless state. there is nothing. No space. No time. Absolutely nothing.”

He’s exaggerating.

What we can say for sure about that supposed “timeless state”, in which there is no measurable time, is that it obviously didn’t last long :)

This means this hypothetical prehistoric “state” is characterised by a capacity (or compulsion) to change into a state in which there is measurable time and space. The existence of such a capacity means we’re not dealing with “absolutely nothing”, which has no characteristics at all.

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 15:50:47
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1220155
Subject: re: ...just when...

Bubblecar said:


Bubblecar said:

>Professor Hertog said. “At some point 13.8 billion years in the past we had a boundary, where our familiar notion of time ceases to be meaningful and we are left with a kind of timeless state. there is nothing. No space. No time. Absolutely nothing.”

He’s exaggerating.

What we can say for sure about that supposed “timeless state”, in which there is no measurable time, is that it obviously didn’t last long :)

This means this hypothetical prehistoric “state” is characterised by a capacity (or compulsion) to change into a state in which there is measurable time and space. The existence of such a capacity means we’re not dealing with “absolutely nothing”, which has no characteristics at all.

Yes, that’s exactly how I see it.

But then I’m not a physicist either.

But it does surprise me somewhat that some leading scientists speak with such certainty about these things (or the lack of them), when we have no bleeding idea.

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 16:36:23
From: macx
ID: 1220187
Subject: re: ...just when...

This means this hypothetical prehistoric “state” is characterised by a capacity (or compulsion) to change into a state in which there is measurable time and space.

<><><>I am very drawn to this idea of change of state. eg time and space always existed, even in the pre-historic model, what did occur was a change of state of time. and (consequently??) space. Certain things can not be directly detected/measured until a change of state occurs. Magnetic induction is a good example…without a change in flux what do we have… certainly not nothing, but something which can be difficult to measure in the real world, which is why the work of Fleming, Oersted and others is so vitally important. Steady state is just too simple and convenient IMO. There is no compelling reason why time should advance at the rate of 1sec/sec.However to measure this directly has required some of man’s greatest achievements in science.

The existence of such a capacity means we’re not dealing with “absolutely nothing”, which has no characteristics at all.

Yes!

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 16:40:51
From: Cymek
ID: 1220190
Subject: re: ...just when...

macx said:


This means this hypothetical prehistoric “state” is characterised by a capacity (or compulsion) to change into a state in which there is measurable time and space.

<><><>I am very drawn to this idea of change of state. eg time and space always existed, even in the pre-historic model, what did occur was a change of state of time. and (consequently??) space. Certain things can not be directly detected/measured until a change of state occurs. Magnetic induction is a good example…without a change in flux what do we have… certainly not nothing, but something which can be difficult to measure in the real world, which is why the work of Fleming, Oersted and others is so vitally important. Steady state is just too simple and convenient IMO. There is no compelling reason why time should advance at the rate of 1sec/sec.However to measure this directly has required some of man’s greatest achievements in science.

The existence of such a capacity means we’re not dealing with “absolutely nothing”, which has no characteristics at all.

Yes!

Perhaps it was a false vacuum collapsing to another false vacuum/vacuum

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 16:42:59
From: poikilotherm
ID: 1220192
Subject: re: ...just when...

Cymek said:


macx said:

This means this hypothetical prehistoric “state” is characterised by a capacity (or compulsion) to change into a state in which there is measurable time and space.

<><><>I am very drawn to this idea of change of state. eg time and space always existed, even in the pre-historic model, what did occur was a change of state of time. and (consequently??) space. Certain things can not be directly detected/measured until a change of state occurs. Magnetic induction is a good example…without a change in flux what do we have… certainly not nothing, but something which can be difficult to measure in the real world, which is why the work of Fleming, Oersted and others is so vitally important. Steady state is just too simple and convenient IMO. There is no compelling reason why time should advance at the rate of 1sec/sec.However to measure this directly has required some of man’s greatest achievements in science.

The existence of such a capacity means we’re not dealing with “absolutely nothing”, which has no characteristics at all.

Yes!

Perhaps it was a false vacuum collapsing to another false vacuum/vacuum

I thought a false vacuum was a broom?

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 16:48:47
From: macx
ID: 1220198
Subject: re: ...just when...

<><><>Perhaps it was a false vacuum collapsing to another false vacuum/vacuum

Why not…as good as any other speculation.

What might be interesting is to consider if any “information” could cross the pre-historic boundary, also bearing in mind that that boundary is not in steady state. If information can not cross the pre-historic boundary then it is probable that we will never know unless a change is initiated in our current universe. We have magnetic induction so how about time induction…hiden from us until a change of state occurs.

Serendipity is fun sometimes.

:)

macx

Reply Quote

Date: 3/05/2018 17:25:42
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1220220
Subject: re: ...just when...

Tau.Neutrino said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

Bubblecar said:

Hi macx. That interpretation of Hawking’s last ideas seems rather odd given that his last media utterances, shortly before he died, were a reiteration of the “no boundaries” stuff.

Wouldn’t a boundary at the start of the universe prevent a big bang?

I’d feel better if boundary was replaced by another state of matter.

I meant to say this

I’d feel better if boundary was replaced by the universe being in another state.

Reply Quote

Date: 5/05/2018 10:40:41
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1220990
Subject: re: ...just when...

Tau.Neutrino said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wouldn’t a boundary at the start of the universe prevent a big bang?

I’d feel better if boundary was replaced by another state of matter.

I meant to say this

I’d feel better if boundary was replaced by the universe being in another state.

Before the singularity happened the universe could have been in another state, we see different states of matter that change behavior with certain conditions so why not the whole universe existing at that time in another state?

Reply Quote

Date: 5/05/2018 10:49:37
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1220993
Subject: re: ...just when...

Tau.Neutrino said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I’d feel better if boundary was replaced by another state of matter.

I meant to say this

I’d feel better if boundary was replaced by the universe being in another state.

Before the singularity happened the universe could have been in another state, we see different states of matter that change behavior with certain conditions so why not the whole universe existing at that time in another state?

So at that time at the during the big bang the universe was changing its behavior from something that we don’t know to what is is now.

Reply Quote